Defend Our Online Communities: Stop SESTA

A new bill is working its way through Congress that could be disastrous for free speech online. EFF is proud to be part of the coalition fighting back.

We all rely on online platforms to work, socialize, and learn. They’re where we go to make friends and share ideas with each other. But a bill in Congress could threaten these crucial online gathering places. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) might sound virtuous, but it’s the wrong solution to a serious problem.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, R Street Institute, and over a dozen fellow public interest organizations are joining forces to launch a new website highlighting the problems of SESTA. Together, we’re trying to send a clear message to Congress: Don’t endanger our online communities. Stop SESTA.

SESTA would weaken 47 U.S.C. § 230 (commonly known as "CDA 230" or simply “Section 230”), one of the most important laws protecting free expression online. Section 230 protects Internet intermediaries—individuals, companies, and organizations that provide a platform for others to share speech and content over the Internet. This includes social networks like Facebook, video platforms like YouTube, news sites, blogs, and other websites that allow comments. Section 230 says that an intermediary cannot be held legally responsible for content created by others (with a few exceptions). And that’s a good thing: it’s why we have flourishing online communities where users can comment and interact with one another without waiting for a moderator to review every post.

SESTA would change all of that. It would shift more blame for users’ speech to the web platforms themselves. Under SESTA, web communities would likely become much more restrictive in how they patrol and monitor users’ contributions. Some of the most vulnerable platforms would be ones that operate on small budgets—sites like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, and small WordPress blogs that play a crucial role in modern life but don’t have the massive budgets to defend themselves that Facebook and Twitter do.

Experts in human trafficking say that SESTA is aiming at the wrong target. Alexandra Levy, adjunct professor of human trafficking and human markets at Notre Dame Law School, writes, “Section 230 doesn’t cause lawlessness. Rather, it creates a space in which many things — including lawless behavior — come to light. And it’s in that light that multitudes of organizations and people have taken proactive steps to usher victims to safety and apprehend their abusers.”

Related Updates

California is trying to gag websites from sharing true, publicly available information about actors in the name of age discrimination. But one online service, IMDb, is fighting back. EFF and four other public interest organizations have filed in a friend of the court brief in the case, urging the court...

Succumbing to years of government pressure, the online classified ads website Backpage.com has shut down its adult servicessection. Just like Craigslist before it, Backpage faced the difficult choice of censoring an entire forum for online speech rather than continue to endure the costly onslaught of state...

David Greene, civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said courts across the United States have affirmed the fact that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Backpage and other online publishers from liability for the content their users create. And shaming a website like Backpage into...

Imagine if every depiction of a real person on social media could support a lawsuit. That’s the strange and dangerous logic of a recent lower court decision from California. In that case, Cross v. Facebook, a superior court judge ruled that any “use” of a person’s identity...

Section 230 of the Act guarantees that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Judges have affirmed that Section 230 means online platforms cannot be held responsible for what is published...

EFF helped online public records platform MuckRock successfully defend three lawsuits filed against it and one of its users over public records that allegedly contained trade secrets. This included vindicating MuckRock's First Amendment rights when a court repealed a previous order that required the platform to de-publish public records the...

Backpage asked a court to dismiss the case, citing the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and saying the prosecution had provided no proof that Backpage’s business had been anything more than web publishing. On Wednesday, a judge agreed that the CDA barred the charges against the site, and tentatively ruled to...

A California judge has agreed to give the state attorney general's office more time to persuade him that the operators of what she called "the world's top online brothel" should face charges of pimping after he tentatively rejected them in a ruling. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Bowman said...

A federal district court judge on Tuesday denied homesharing company Airbnb, Inc. its request for an injunction against a San Francisco law aimed at protecting local rental housing stock from being used as tourist lodging. Airbnb filed suit against the city to get an injunction against the law, arguing among...

San Francisco’s Electronic Frontier Foundation, which promotes online free speech, said it receives queries at least weekly from consumers being sued over online reviews, usually on Yelp and sometimes on Glassdoor, a site where employees rate their workplaces, said staff attorney Sophia Cope. The EFF does not take individual cases...